tt

Obviously I said from an LCD screen, meaning that is all I'm judging it by. I was doing a brief comparative analysis, based on what a 1DS MKII file looks like on an LCD screen and then opened on a computer monitor. I don't understand how someone could think I'm trying to state definitive findings. But over the years of examining files on LCD screens then opening them on computer monitors, I'd say my assessment is a relatively safe barometer (comparing the 1Dx ISO25K to 1DS MKII ISO800 files at least, and possibly ISO400). We'll see; and I saw.

Any idea on comparing that to the 5D Mk II roughly? ISO 1600 seems reasonable on 5D (more so in lighter conditions, but that's the deal with any camera).

Side-point - is this presumably part sensor, part Noise Reduction improvements? Presumably this could also mean better NR in post using Light Room for shots taken from the 1DX?

Any idea on comparing that to the 5D Mk II roughly? ISO 1600 seems reasonable on 5D (more so in lighter conditions, but that's the deal with any camera).

Side-point - is this presumably part sensor, part Noise Reduction improvements? Presumably this could also mean better NR in post using Light Room for shots taken from the 1DX?

My understanding of the claimed 2 stop ISO improvement of the 1DX over the 1DIV is using a JPEG file (from reading other post on the 1DX) which would suggest indeed this is part sensor and part in camera NR improvements.

No of use have seem actual RAW file but the sense seem to be that using RAW file this improvement will be less then 2 stops. So maybe comparing to your 5D mkII we will get 1 stop improvements (or a little more) but certainly not two. The comments from J7771 (which I hope is true by the way as a future buyer of the 1DX) would mean ISO 25k would be as good as your ISO 1600 on your 5D which seem to big of a gap to be realistic.

I am hoping for ISO 6400 of the 1DX to be at least as clean as 1600 on my 5D mkII...only time will tell us

Instead of ISO 102400, it now reads 12,800 which is three stops less. Expandable to 204,000??? Expand by 4 stops? I'd wonder what a 4 stop underexposed image looks like when pulled up in processing. Not good, I'd expect.

Instead of ISO 102400, it now reads 12,800 which is three stops less. Expandable to 204,000??? Expand by 4 stops? I'd wonder what a 4 stop underexposed image looks like when pulled up in processing. Not good, I'd expect.

Yeah pretty interesting; 2 stops lower native ISO than 1DX.

Nikon keeping the native ISO this 'low' could mean that they found a way to come up with very, very clean images @ ISO 12800. And 204k sounds just silly to me.